we have found Mr Altman highly forthcoming

That's exactly the line that made my heart sink.

I find it a weird thing to choose to say/emphasize.

The issue under discussion isn't whether Altman hid things from the new board; it's whether he hid things to the old board a long while ago.

Of course he's going to seem forthcoming towards the new board at first. So, the new board having the impression that he was forthcoming towards them? This isn't information that helps us much in assessing whether to side with Altman vs the old board. That makes me think: why report on it? It would be a more relevant update if Taylor or Summers were willing to stick their necks out a little further and say something stronger and more direct, something more in the direction of (hypothetically), "In all our by-now extensive interactions with Altman, we got the sense that he's the sort of person you can trust; in fact, he had surprisingly circumspect and credible things to say about what happened, and he seems self-aware about things that he could've done better (and those things seem comparatively small or at least very understandable)." If they had added something like that, it would have been more interesting and surprising. (At least for those who are currently skeptical or outright negative towards Altman; but also "surprising" in terms of "nice, the new board is really invested in forming their own views here!"). 

By contrast, this combination of basically defending Altman (and implying pretty negative things about Toner and McCauley's objectivity and their judgment on things that they deem fair to tell the media), but doing so without sticking their necks out, makes me worried that the board is less invested in outcomes and more invested in playing their role. By "not sticking their necks out," I mean the outsourcing of judgment-forming to the independent investigation and the mentioning of clearly unsurprising and not-very-relevant things like whether Altman has been forthcoming to them, so far. By "less invested in outcomes and more invested in playing their role," I mean the possibility that the new board maybe doesn't consider it important to form opinions at the object level (on Altman's character and his suitability for OpenAI's mission, and generally them having a burning desire to make the best CEO-related decisions). Instead, the alternative mode they could be in would be having in mind a specific "role" that board members play, which includes things like, e.g., "check whether Altman ever gets caught doing something outrageous," "check if he passes independent legal reviews," or "check if Altman's answers seem reassuring when we occasionally ask him critical questions." And then, that's it, job done. If that's the case, I think that'd be super unfortunate. The more important the org, the more it matters to have a engaged/invested board that considers itself ultimately responsible for CEO-related outcomes ("will history look back favorably on their choices regarding the CEO").

To sum up, I'd have much preferred it if their comments had either included them sticking their neck out a little more, or if I had gotten from them more of a sense of still withholding judgment. I think the latter would have been possible even in combination with still reminding the public that Altman (e.g.,) passed that independent investigation or that some of the old board members' claims against him seem thinly supported, etc. (If that's their impression, fair enough.) For instance, it's perfectly possible to say something like, "In our duty as board members, we haven't noticed anything unusual or worrisome, but we'll continue to keep our eyes open." That's admittedly pretty similar, in substance, to what they actually said. Still, it would read as a lot more reassuring to me because of its different emphasis My alternative phrasing would help convey that (1) they don't naively believe that Altman – in worlds where he is dodgy – would have likely already given things away easily in interactions towards them, and (2) that they consider themselves responsible for the outcome (and not just following of the common procedures) of whether OpenAI will be led well and in line with its mission.
(Maybe they do in fact have these views, 1 and 2, but didn't do a good job here at reassuring me of that.)

Followed immediately by: 

I too also have very strong concerns that we are putting a person whose highest stats are political maneuvering and deception, who is very high in power seeking, into this position. By all reports, you cannot trust what this man tells you.

For me, the key question in situations when leaders made a decision with really bad consequences is, "How did they engage with criticism and opposing views?"

If they did well on this front, then I don't think it's at all mandatory to push for leadership changes (though certainly, the worse someones track record gets, the more that speaks against them).

By contrast, if leaders tried to make the opposition look stupid or if they otherwise used their influence to dampen the reach of opposing views, then being wrong later is unacceptable.

Basically, I want to allow for a situation where someone was like, "this is a tough call and I can see reasons why others wouldn't agree with me, but I think we should do this," and then ends up being wrong, but I don't want to allow situations where someone is wrong after having expressed something more like, "listen to me, I know better than you, go away."

In the first situation, it might still be warranted to push for leadership changes (esp. if there's actually a better alternative), but I don't see it as mandatory. 

The author of the original short form says we need to hold leaders accountable for bad decisions because otherwise the incentives are wrong. I agree with that, but I think it's being too crude to tie incentives to whether a decision looks right or wrong in hindsight. We can do better and evaluate how someone went about making a decision and how they handled opposing views. (Basically, if opposing views aren't loud enough that you'd have to actively squish them using your influence illegitimately, then the mistake isn't just yours as the leader; it's also that the situation wasn't significantly obvious to others around you.) I expect that everyone who has strong opinions on things and is ambitious and agenty in a leadership position is going to make some costly mistakes. The incentives shouldn't be such that leaders shy away from consequential interventions.

I agree with what you say in the first paragraph. If you're talking about Ilya, which I think you are, I can see what you mean in the second paragraph, but I'd flag that even if he had some sort of plan here, it seems pretty costly and also just bad norms for someone with his credibility to say something that indicates that he thinks OpenAI is on track to do well at handling their great responsibility, assuming he were to not actually believe this. It's one thing to not say negative things explicitly; it's a different thing to say something positive that rules out the negative interpretations. I tend to take people at their word if they say things explicitly, even if I can assume that they were facing various pressures. If I were to assume that Ilya is saying positive things that he doesn't actually believe, that wouldn't reflect well on him, IMO. 

If we consider Jan Leike's situation, I think what you're saying applies more easily, because him leaving without comment already reflects poorly on OpenAI's standing on safety, and maybe he just decided that saying something explicitly doesn't really add a ton of information (esp. since maybe there are other people who might be in a better position to say things in the future). Also, I'm not sure it affects future employment prospects too much if someone leaves a company, signs a non-disparagement agreement, and goes "no comment" to indicate that there was probably dissatisfaction with some aspects of the company. There are many explanations for this and if I was making hiring decisions at some AI company, even if it's focused on profits quite a bit, I wouldn't necessarily interpret this as a negative signal. 

That said, signing non-disparagament agreements certainly feels like it has costs and constrains option value, so it seems like a tough choice.

It seems likely (though not certain) that they signed non-disparagement agreements, so we may not see more damning statements from them even if that's how they feel. Also, Ilya at least said some positive things in his leaving announcement, so that indicates either that he caved in to pressure (or too high agreeableness towards former co-workers) or that he's genuinely not particularly worried about the direction of the company and that he left more because of reasons related to his new project. 

I agree: appealing to libertarianism shouldn't automatically win someone the argument on whether it's okay to still have factory farms.

The fact that Zvi thought he provided enough of a pointer to an argument there feels weird, in my opinion.

That said, maybe he was mostly focused on wanting to highlight that a large subset of people who are strongly against this ban (and may use libertarian arguments to argue for their position) are only against bans when it suits their agenda. So, maybe the point was in a way more about specific people's hypocrisy in how they argue than the question of concern for animals.

Either way, I continue to appreciate all these newsletters and I admit that the opinionated tone often makes them more interesting/fun to read in cases where it's not triggering me on issues that I see differently.

I think one issue is that someone can be aware about a specific worldview's existence and even consider it a plausible worldview, but still be quite bad at understanding what it would imply/look like in practice if it were true. 

For me personally, it's not that I explicitly singled out the scenario that happened and assigned it some very low probability. Instead, I think I mostly just thought about scenarios that all start from different assumptions, and that was that.

For instance, when reading Paul's "What failure looks like" (which I had done multiple times), I thought I understood the scenario and even explicitly assigned it significant likelihood, but as it turned out, I didn't really understand it because I never really thought in detail about "how do we get from a 2021 world (before chat-gpt) to something like the world when things go off the rails in Paul's description?" If I had asked myself that question, I'd probably have realized that his worldview implies that there probably isn't a clear-cut moment of "we built the first AGI!" where AI boxing has relevance.

I lean towards agreeing with the takeaway; I made a similar argument here and would still bet on the slope being very steep inside the human intelligence level. 

In some of his books on evolution, Dawkins also said very similar things when commenting on Darwin vs Wallace, basically saying that there's no comparison, Darwin had a better grasp of things, justified it better and more extensively, didn't have muddled thinking about mechanisms, etc.

Very cool! I used to think Hume was the most ahead of his time, but this seems like the same feat if not better.